See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science - Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum
Source:
CFP
URL Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3952
Published: Jul 14, 2008
Author: Peter J. Morgan
Post Date: 2008-07-16 10:22:18 by nikki
Keywords: Oil
Views: 562
Comments: 41
We all grew up believing that oil is a fossil fuel, and just about every day this 'fact' is mentioned in newspapers and on TV. However, let us not forget what Lenin said - "A lie told often enough becomes truth." It was in 1757 that the great Russian scholar Mikhailo V. Lomonosov enunciated the hypothesis that oil might originate from biological detritus. The scientists who first rejected Lomonsov's hypothesis, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, were the famous German naturalist and geologist Alexander von Humboldt and the French chemist and thermodynamicist Louis Joseph Gay-Lussac, who together enunciated the proposition that oil is a primordial material erupted from great depth, and is unconnected with any biological matter near the surface of the Earth. With the development of chemistry during the nineteenth century, and following particularly the enunciation of the second law of thermodynamics by Clausius in 1850, Lomonosov's biological hypothesis came inevitably under attack. In science, a hypothesis is merely somebody's attempt to explain something. It is merely that - an attempt. In the scientific method, a hypothesis is also an open invitation for somebody else to discredit it by using physical evidence to demonstrate that the hypothesis is flawed, or incorrect - that is how scientific knowledge is advanced. Einstein is reputed to have remarked that just one fact was all that was needed to invalidate his theory of relativity. The great French chemist Marcellin Berthelot particularly scorned the hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. Berthelot first carried out experiments involving, among others, a series of what are now referred to as Kolbe reactions and demonstrated the generation of petroleum by dissolving steel in strong acid. He produced the suite of n-alkanes and made it plain that such were generated in total absence of any "biological" molecule or process. Berthelot's investigations were later extended and refined by other scientists, including Biasson and Sokolov, all of whom observed similar phenomena and likewise concluded that petroleum was unconnected to biological matter. During the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the great Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev also examined and rejected Lomonosov's hypothesis of a biological origin for petroleum. In contrast to Berthelot who had made no suggestion as to where or how petroleum might have come, Mendeleev stated clearly that petroleum is a primordial material which has erupted from great depth. With extraordinary perception, Mendeleev hypothesised the existence of geological structures which he called "deep faults," and correctly identified such as the locus of weakness in the crust of the Earth via which petroleum would travel from the depths. After he made that hypothesis, Mendeleev was abusively criticised by the geologists of his time, for the notion of deep faults was then unknown. Today, of course, an understanding of plate tectonics would be unimaginable without recognition of deep faults. Soon after the end of World War II, the Soviet dictator, Stalin, realized that the then Soviet Union needed its own substantial oil reserves and production system if it was ever again called upon to defend itself against an attacker such as Hitler's Germany. In 1947, the Soviet Union had, as its petroleum 'experts' then estimated, very limited petroleum reserves, of which the largest were the oil fields in the region of the Abseron Peninsula, near the Caspian city of Baku in what is now the independent country of Azerbaijan. At that time, the oil fields near Baku were considered to be "depleting" and "nearing exhaustion." During World War II, the Soviets had occupied the two northern provinces of Iran, but in 1946, they were forced out by the British. By 1947, the Soviets realised that the American, British, and French were not going to allow them to operate in the Middle East, nor in the petroleum producing areas of Africa, nor Indonesia, nor Burma, nor Malaysia, nor anywhere in the Far East, nor in Latin America. The government of the Soviet Union recognised then that new petroleum reserves would have to be discovered and developed within the U.S.S.R. Stalin's response was to set up a task force of top scientists and engineers in a project similar to the Manhattan Project - the top-secret US program to develop the atom bomb during WWII - and initially under the same secrecy, and charged them with the task of finding out what oil was, where it came from and how to find, recover and efficiently refine it. In 1951, the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins was first enunciated by Nikolai A. Kudryavtsev at the All-Union petroleum geology congress. Kudryavtsev analyzed the hypothesis of a biological origin of petroleum, and pointed out the failures of the claims then commonly put forth to support that hypothesis. Kudryavtsev was soon joined by numerous other Russian and Ukrainian geologists, among the first of whom were P. N. Kropotkin, K. A. Shakhvarstova, G. N. Dolenko, V. F. Linetskii, V. B. Porfir'yev, and K. A. Anikiev. During the first decade of its existence, the modern theory of petroleum origins was the subject of great contention and controversy. Between the years 1951 and 1965, with the leadership of Kudryavtsev and Porfir'yev, increasing numbers of geologists published articles demonstrating the failures and inconsistencies inherent in the old "biogenic origin" hypothesis. With the passing of the first decade of the modern theory, the failure of Lomonosov's eighteenth century hypothesis of an origin of petroleum from biological detritus in the near-surface sediments had been thoroughly demonstrated, the hypothesis discredited, and the modern theory firmly established. An important point to be recognised is that the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of abiotic petroleum origins was, initially, a geologists' theory. Kudryavtsev, Kropotkin, Dolenko, Porfir'yev and the developers of the modern theory of petroleum were all geologists. Their arguments were necessarily those of geologists, developed from many observations, and much data, organized into a pattern, and argued by persuasion. By contrast, the practice of mainstream, predictive modern science, particularly physics and chemistry, involves a minimum of observation or data, and applies only a minimum of physical law, inevitably expressed with formal mathematics, and argued by compulsion. Such predictive proof of the geologists' assertions for the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins had to wait almost a half century, for such required the development not only of modern quantum statistical mechanics, but also that of the techniques of many-body theory and the application of statistical geometry to the analysis of dense fluids, designated scaled particle theory. To recapitulate, Stalin's team of scientists and engineers found that oil is not a 'fossil fuel' but is a natural product of planet earth - the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide - two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth's crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the 'death' of planet earth in millions of years' time. The high pressure, as well as centrifugal acceleration from the earth's rotation, causes oil to continuously seep up along fissures in the earth's crust into subterranean caverns, which we call oil fields. Oil is still being produced in great abundance, and is a sustainable resource - by the same definition that makes geothermal energy a sustainable resource. All we have to do is develop better geotechnical science to predict where it is and learn how to drill down deep enough to get to it. So far, the Russians have drilled to more than 13 km and found oil. In contrast, the deepest any Western oil company has drilled is around 4.5 km. A team consisting of Russian scientists and Dr J. F. Kenney, of Gas Resources Corporation, Houston, USA, have actually built a reactor vessel and proven that oil is produced from calcium carbonate and iron oxide, as detailed on the Gas Resources website This is what Dr Kenney has to say about how he came to be involved: Needless to say, the last people to tell us the truth about oil will be the oil producers and oil companies, for they of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that oil is a fossil fuel and that it will soon be exhausted, in order to ratchet up the price for as long as they can. And don't look to the Russians to enlighten the world with the truth about oil either, for they are surely laughing now that the oil price is approaching $US150 a barrel. A US Public Service Radio interview with Dr Kenney may be heard on the Gas Resources website. Some may ask "How come all of this isn't commonly known?" For the answer, one needs to consider what happened to Galileo when he first put forward the hypothesis that rather than the conventional wisdom that the sun revolved around the earth, the earth revolved around the sun. He was branded a heretic and locked up! You are invited to read an excellent article entitled "Cognitive Processes and the Suppression of Sound Scientific Ideas", by J. Sacherman 1997, at http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/supress1.html Some may say "Well, even if oil is a renewable resource, mankind should not burn it because the carbon dioxide so produced causes global warming." My answer to that is that the idea that mankind's production of carbon dioxide causes global warming is merely a hypothesis, and this has been thoroughly discredited by Prof. Robert Carter and numerous other scientists. You are invited to view a video of Prof. Robert Carter's demolition of the "mankind's production of carbon dioxide causes global warming" hypothesis here where you will see Prof. Carter illustrate five examples of verifiable science that refute the hypothesis. Prof. Carter makes the point that truth in science is never decided by consensus, but if you prefer to believe the pronouncement by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that "2,500 scientists of the United Nation's IPCC agree that humans are causing a climate crisis", which is repeated ad nauseam by environmentalists, the press and governments around the world, including ours, then you are invited to read an article at Canada Free Press where Tom Harris and John McLean tell the truth about this deception and point out that "an example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that 'hundreds of IPCC scientists' are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely "Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years." In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, "Understanding and Attributing Climate Change". Almost 60% of the comments received from the 62 expert reviewers of this critical chapter were rejected by the IPCC editors and 55 of the 62 expert reviewers had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial. In my view, seven does not constitute "a consensus of the world's scientists.." If it's consensus you want before you decide on what the truth is, then follow the link to The National Post to read about the petition signed by more than 32,000 scientists, more than 9000 of whom hold PhDs. That's consensus!!!!!!!!! We all know what has been happening to food prices, mostly as a direct result of US government subsidies for the production of ethanol from corn. The current US strategy, driven by the erroneous belief that oil is a fossil fuel and that its supply will soon be exhausted, is illogical. Given the fact that oil is abiotic and is in continuous production deep down in the earth's crust, at rates far in excess of what mankind could ever conceivably consume, it makes absolutely no sense for any nation to buy it from foreign sources if it is cheaper to drill for and pump its own - and that is precisely what the US should be doing immediately, without ever needing to go near the wildlife reserves in Alaska. If the US switched from being a net consumer in the world oil market to becoming a net supplier, the price of oil would plunge, perhaps to around $US30 per barrel, with the result that the world's economies would boom as never before. Most importantly, people would have confidence to invest in their futures, safe in the knowledge that oil would never run out. An extra bonus would be that the US military-industrial-political complex would no longer feel the need to use military force to control the Middle East's oil supplies, and neither would any other world power. A further bonus would be that all subsidies to producers of alternative fuels and energy supplies could be removed, with the result that such production would occur only if it was economically viable, which in almost , if not all, cases would mean that such producers would cease business. Each of us in our own small way can now burn as much petroleum product as we can afford to put in our cars and boats, safe in the knowledge that (a) oil is never going to run out and (b) all the extra carbon dioxide we produce will not cause global warming, but will help plants, and hence food, to grow faster, thus helping to feed the billions! Please feel free to contact your local political representative and urge him or her to put a stop to the lunacy of trying to reduce mankind's carbon dioxide 'emissions', and put a stop to talking about oil as a 'fossil fuel'. The sooner people wake up to the non-science of 'global warming' and 'oil is a fossil fuel' and 'burning oil is an environmental sin', the better off we and our children and our children's children (etc.) will be. Please feel free to copy and paste the text of this article to all those on your email address list. By doing this, you will help to ensure that so many people will tell their government that they will not put up with the 'global warming' nonsense any more, that the whole edifice will collapse, in much the same way that the Berlin Wall was brought down and the Iron Curtain collapsed - without another shot being fired - just as, I might add, I predicted to my high school students during my years spent teaching economics in the early 1980s. Several years later, in 1989, I was in Ludwigshafen, only two weeks before the Berlin Wall came down, and well remember the tears flowing profusely down the cheeks of my elderly East German companions at a 'new wine' festival as I told them that the Wall would come down in a few weeks and that there would be "one Germany, very soon!" Peter J. Morgan B.E. (Mech.), Dip. Teaching, is a Consulting Forensic Engineer, Marine Designer, Technical Writer, Sub-editor & Technical Editor in Auckland, New Zealand. Peter can be reached at: forensic.eng@xtra.co.nz
Poster Comment: "Given the fact that oil is abiotic and is in continuous production deep down in the earth's crust, at rates far in excess of what mankind could ever conceivably consume, it makes absolutely no sense for any nation to buy it from foreign sources if it is cheaper to drill for and pump its own - and that is precisely what the US should be doing immediately, without ever needing to go near the wildlife reserves in Alaska. If the US switched from being a net consumer in the world oil market to becoming a net supplier, the price of oil would plunge, perhaps to around $US30 per barrel, with the result that the world's economies would boom as never before. Most importantly, people would have confidence to invest in their futures, safe in the knowledge that oil would never run out. An extra bonus would be that the US military-industrial-political complex would no longer feel the need to use military force to control the Middle East's oil supplies, and neither would any other world power. " "In the first instance, the articles on this" (his company's website http://www.gasresources.com) "are dedicated to the memory of Nikolai Alexandrovich Kudryavtsev, who first enunciated in 19511 what has become the modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins. After Kudryavtsev, all the rest followed. Secondly, these articles are dedicated generally to the many geologists, geochemists, geophysicists, and petroleum engineers of the former U.S.S.R. who, during the past half century, developed modern petroleum science. By doing so, they raised their country from being, in 1946, a relatively petroleum-poor one, to the greatest petroleum producing and exporting nation in the world today. These articles are dedicated specifically to the late Academician Emmanuil Bogdanovich Chekaliuk, the greatest statistical thermodynamicist ever to have turned his formidable intellect to the problem of petroleum genesis. In the Summer of 1976, during the depths of the cold war and at immeasurable hazard, Academician Chekaliuk chose to respond, across a gulf of political hostility, to an unsolicited letter from an unknown American chief executive officer of a petroleum company headquartered in Houston, Texas. Thenafter and for almost fifteen years, Academician Chekaliuk was my teacher, my collaborator, and my friend. [JFK] 1. Kudryavtsev, N. A. (1951) Petroleum Economy [Neftianoye Khozyaistvo] 9, 17-29."
Interesting.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: nikki (#0)
As many on here have told me, this is not the only reason "we" are constantly starting wars in the Middle East. As long as "Greater Israel" is in control of D.C., the wars on behalf of Zion will never end, oil or no oil.
“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston
The reason Soviet scientists came up with the non-biogenic oil theory was to perpetuate the myth that oil will never run out. The Communist Party hacks wanted "science" to reinforce their view that the Soviet Union was unstoppable, and depletable oil reserves didn't fit with that picture. If we follow their line on oil supply, we'll be in the same boat as the farmers who were forced to follow the "theories" of party hacks and charlatans who said that you could grow wheat in the tundra by freezing the seeds.
Yep. The reason the abiotic oil theory fails is that crude holds dead micro-organisms and by tracking those, you can tell exactly when it was formed and where and by what. Nobody ever seems to want to talk about that. Why?
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
source please. Also if this is true does that necessitate that it was formed by dead lifeforms.
As long as "Greater Israel" is in control of D.C., the wars on behalf of Zion will never end, oil or no oil. As reason after reason is stripped away, those that benefit lose and overplay their hand. So I've been told.
Because if you face the truth, you can no longer "create your own reality" and make wishes come true. Much better to have the wive's tales about oil wells that fill themselves back up and the mythical million-year untapped oil fields. M. King Hubbert was right, and it's been proven time & time again. All one has to do is look at the huge declines in the North Sea production, Mexico and elsewhere, but that doesn't support the unlimited oil theory. The truth hurts, and the sad fact of the matter is, that the remaining oil left in the ground is reserved for the government and their massive war/police machine. So, sorry Suzie SUV, you'll just have to pay the price to exercise your "right" to be as wasteful as you want.
Google "Oil Source Fingerprint" which will lead you to a lot of articles on chemically fingerprinting oil. Tracking bacteria is new, but the technology to track exactly where oil came from has been around for decades. If "the earth just makes oil" then it would have the same chemical fingerprints everywhere because it would come from the same source, right? If it all comes from the same source, then how can we track it down to a particular well? Something doesn't add up in the abiotic theory.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
I hear you, but I'm not sure what to believe. Let's just get on with the car powered by water.
I think that oil contains a number of organic compounds that are only known from the cells of living creatures. Isn't there a poster on this site who says that he's a geologist by training? I wonder what he has to say.
Not necessarily. It could be getting "contaminated" from different sources at different places.
But how do you explain this. I think this guy could be onto something. Imagine the possibilities.
The abiotic theory also appeals to a lot of religious nuts who take the Biblical Genesis story literally. If you think that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, obviously you aren't going to like a theory about oil taking millions of years to form. Kind of ironic how atheist Communists and religious fundies converge to the same stories.
Many places are collecting hog crap and using that to produce methane. Sort of a Beyond Thunderdome thing. Its a great idea. Produce fuel then use the rest for fertilizer. The ultimate in recycling; the hog entrails can also be placed in a "thermal depolymerization" machine (Butterball turkey plants already do this) and at the cost of around $50/bbl you get light sweet crude oil from any organic matter whatsoever. The only gotcha is space. Need to have enough space to do it all in because it takes a lot of land to store that much fecal matter. Humanure is another concept worth investigating, especially given the number of politicians we have.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
So their many deep wells that have catapulted them to a major world oil producing nation are just luck? Yeah, whatever!
God is always good!
Not surprising. Global Warming freaks are also going for the "Agree with me or burn in hell!" concept. Seems that as people fly too close to the edges of their portion of the spectrum, they pop up on the other side.
"A leader, for a change." - Jimmy Carter, 1976 campaign slogan. Sound familiar? Here it comes again!
This theory is probably correct, IMO.
He who is not grateful for the good things he has would not be happy with what he wishes he had.
The fingerprint is acquired as it nears the surface.
He who is not grateful for the good things he has would not be happy with what he wishes he had.
Whether it is correct or not Russia has demonstrated that oil can be found at far greater depths than previously thought possible. IMO oil is much more abundant on Earth than we are led to believe.
God is always good!
Think of the Permian basin in Texas. The Permian geological period is named after the Perm Region of Russia, so the Russians are sitting on an even bigger chunk of oil rich sediment than we have in Texas. It has nothing to do with the abiotic theory, and everything to do with having the right sedimentary rock from the right geological period under your feet.
Otherwise known as a natural casing hotdog maker.
Seems that as people fly too close to the edges of their portion of the spectrum, they pop up on the other side. PC liberals with their postmodernism bullshit are as anti-science and anti- technology as any religious nut. And Soviet Communists were famous for their pseudoscience. That's because PC liberalism and Communism ARE religions.
I have a hard time believing there is only one answer to the problem, but teeth knashers kick into overdrive if there is the slightest nipping at their heels. So, there must be some there, there. Somewhere.
It's been over thirty years we have heard about the world running out of oil, yet production continues to increase.
God is always good!
The Brits will be sending a steam-powered car to Bonneville to try and break the previous land speed record (set back in the teens, I believe) and expect to hit 150mph, or better.
That's the truth. Now there are many solutions, but no concerted effort to implement them, in any small fashion. There has been so much buzz about solar this and windfarm that, and using food for fuel, the broccoli mobile, the french-fry bus --- some things are not practical, dependable, affordable or sane. So, see what works well, for whom, where.. and then, build from there. The real smoking gun to the scam, are policies that run counter to 'managing' the problem, such as unchecked immigration, companies and Govt agencies allowed to own fleets of cars for 'company use' where it's not needed and so on. It's a scam, and part of a larger one, and they have their agents working to marginalize anything that might possibly bubble to top as an affordable solution, where no one has to be punished for it. That is an intolerable thing for some. Someone must feel pain.
Play close attention to those pushing the 'fossil fuel' tripe. ;-)
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
I'm keeping an eye out now, that's for sure.
It seems that the oil industry requires an enormous infrastructure investment, but the globalists already have a lock on it, making alternatives merely a competition.
If it is that the world must run on oil, sharing the cost to build robust economies of mutual benefit, should be an easy choice. True goals are quite purposefully missing from the discussion. There have been a few popping up on the tube recently discussing our 'population problem'.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is the US offshore drilling ban. Is it realistic to think that it was really environmentalists behind the ban? Isn't it more likely that it was a green cover for a program designed to restrict the supply of oil?
according to the US govt, world crude oil production has been pretty much flat for the last four years. International Petroleum Monthly (IPM) from the EIA, see table 1.1d . WTI oil prices, baker hughes rigs working from upstream online U.S $ INDEX (NYBOT:DX from INO
this graph needs to be updated...
there's a theory that's been floating around in peak oil circles for a few years now, and it became noticable as the housing bubble started springing leaks. the theory ran like this: peak oil was the motive to stage 9/11, which served as a pretext to occupy the persian gulf, caspian and central asian oil patches, so peak oil has to be obscured by crashing the economy and destroying demand for oil. meanwhile, in the resulting chaos, or if worse comes to worst, america can be looted like the soviet union was looted. in september of 2000, PNAC admitted they needed a new pearl harbor... netanyahu said 9/11 was "very good". if these guys needed a new pearl harbor, if they thought 9/11 was "very good", then we have to assume they had motives to commit 9/11, the most prominent motive being: peak oil. if you think back about the history of the housing bubble, you cant escape ditech ---owned by general motors. about the only thing to wonder about is: is GM, having seen the peak oil handwriting on the wall, committing suicide deliberately, or were they duped by PNAC? ...not that it makes any difference at this late date. the real problem i have with this whole situation is that everything makes a helluva lot more sense when you plug peak oil into the neocons' PNAC project, their ambitions to achieve "benevolent global hegemony", and their affiliation with israel. they have to control oil to control the world, and they have to grab enough oil to keep their armies running... if oil were so abundant, there'd be no way to control production, because malcontents like chavez, central asians, russians, chinese, africans, all of them would have been pumping oil like crazy to cash in on the high oil prices. but production remained flat, despite a doubling of drills since january 2002, despite the price quadrupling. since many of the gatekeepers in the peak oil movement are jewish or intimidated by jewish control of the media, they are at pains to ensure that peak oil is kept in its little box, and any mention of 9/11 in the same breath as peak oil will get you banished from polite peak oil circles.
First of all after the first oil crisis, oil demand dropped by a lot since we stopped using oil in power plants, as did most of the world. Our oil consumption in the US was lower in the 1980s than it was in 1970s. In fact oil consumption in the US was about the same in 1978 as it was in 1998. This dramatic cut back in oil usage probably added decades to the oil supply We increased supply by finding some new sources, but since the 70s, the US, Mexico, Russia, Canadad, and Venezuela all peaked in oil production. Every single one of these countries makes less oil than the year before. Only three nations on earth haven't hit peak oil. All are in the middle east. There is no evidence to support the abiogensis theory, and plenty to support a biogensis theory. Even if it was an abiogenic source, it clearly doesn't replace the oil fast enough, since wells in the US went dry and stayed that way. This theory is for people who don't like to face reality.
and the brits' north sea peaked in gas and oil production just as the PNAC guys were being installed into positions from which they could make their "new pearl harbor" happen... the important thing to remember about that is: the oil companies had unrestricted access, the best technology, the best expertise, and the north sea still peaked. ...all of which probably explains why tony was such an enthusiastic supporter of the PNAC project. EIA US Crude Oil Production and Crude Oil Well Productivity, 1954-2007
This not completely true. Some wells have indeed increased in oil supply since they have stopped being used. And yes, Russia has proved more than once that oil can be found at depths that the biogensis theory would say is not possible. Reality is that we have more oil around the North Slope of Alaska than all the oil in Saudi Arabia. Counting natural gas and oil in the North Slope alone, we have enough energy resources to last the USA for over 200 years. In North Dakota new oil fields are being found regularly. Offshore drilling does not guarantee more oil finds but I suspect we haven't even begun to deplete the world's oil supply to any significant degree. We may have reached the end of cheap oil recovery, but we have not even started to reach peak oil.
God is always good!
This not completely true. Some wells have indeed increased in oil supply since they have stopped being used. Yes oil sometimes flows back to old wells, but that can very easily be explained by oil in the surrounding area flowing back into areas that got sucked dry. Some wells are marginally more full than when they were capped. Oil wells that were drilled a hundred years ago, are still empty. They aren't filling back up. I've heard this claim, but I've never seen the argument made that the oil found in Russia is impossible under the biogensis theory. The fact that when oil companies look for oil, they use biogensis should be a dead give away its likely the correct theory. Science and industry aren't going to use a wrong theory. Science can be wrong, but it doesn't ignore evidence of that scale. No reality is Saudi Arabia has over 10 times more proven recoverable oil reserves than the US. And the US has been explored very well. The US can't produce enough oil to be independent, let alone to be independent for 200 years. We aren't finding new massive discoveries anymore. Any left oil is in smaller, or harder to recover places. We will hit peak oil in probably less than two decades. If the economy collapses we might have already hit it. Peak oil doesn't mean every drop of oil is gone, but that production peaked. Part of it is the cost of recovery. At a certain level its cheaper to use other sources of energy. Of all proven and unproven reserves only 3 large oil producing nations haven't hit peak oil. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuiwait. (HMM I wonder what they all have in common? US troops?) These three nations will manage the oil market for maximize long term profit. They will attempt to keep the price of oil just low enough that the United States, China, Europe, India, and Japan do not switch to electric cars, or alternative fuels.
Have another look at this article. The dino-shit (or fossil) theory of oil's origin really sounds like more goonshit to me. Like global warming via man-made CO2. Or human prosperity via political elitism.
Exactly. As I have maintained on this forum for some time now. Oil is abundant and the high price is maintained because it is a controlled market. Artificial shortage is created by throttling the oil supply and keeping it off the market. This is very possibly the real reason Saddam Hussein was taken out. Iraq was industrializing and raising the general education level of its populace, which Israel didn't like, AND in order to provide the money needed Saddam was selling more oil than he was supposed to under the agreements to restrict production. What people have to get is that Big Oil (and the people behind them i.e., the Banksters) is not in the "Oil Business" they are in the oil shortage business. Their high profits depend upon restricting the availability of cheap oil and cheap energy in general. However, there are likely cheaper and easier ways to produce abundant energy, but they don't want those on the market because it would kill the oil oligopoly's profits and control.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Putting aside of course that a forensic chemist can also tell you which gold mine any given sample of gold comes from. Of course bacteria can't live and breed at high temperatures with hydrogen sulfide gas being pumped into the sea water at crushing pressures and depths along volcanic ridges either. Oops! They do. So, never mind. The reality is that many things that we think of as "pure" are "pure" relative to some standard. For gold it's 99.9%. What is the standard for oil? The presence of bacteria only proves that the given oil sample is contaminated with bacteria of a known type from a known region. It does not prove that the oil was produced by the decomposition of dead dinosaurs from the Cretaceous.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Exactly Watson! Thus all of the rumors, some better documented than others, of the suppression of technology to produce cheap and abundant energy. Every now and then one will pop up as a small news item and then it just - - - disappears. From recent memory: In Scotland trials were being done on a rooftop wind generator about the size of a satellite dish that would produce 5 KW. It was supposed to be reviewed and results published after a year long trial. It has never been seen again. Within the last year a small time inventor in the midwest developed a modification for fuel systems on small V-8's that had them running at 80 miles per gallon. It received some notice in the controlled media and the inventor was talking about selling it or licensing it to Detroit. It has now completely dropped out of the news. I could list others some more speculative than others, but the rumors and snippets continue to surface. I even know of one involving a family member that built a contraption that basically defied the known laws of physics and ran continuously without any apparent energy input - and that was in the early 50's. His garage was broken into and the apparatus stolen. Nothing else just his test apparatus. I don't know whether he got a "talking to" or not but he never would talk about it and never rebuilt it.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
An extra bonus would be that the US military-industrial-political complex would no longer feel the need to use military force to control the Middle East's oil supplies
#2. To: nikki (#0)
#3. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)
#4. To: mirage (#3)
dead micro-organisms
#5. To: Sam Houston (#1)
As many on here have told me, this is not the only reason "we" are constantly starting wars in the Middle East.
#6. To: mirage (#3)
Nobody ever seems to want to talk about that. Why?
#7. To: Old Friend (#4)
#8. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)
The reason Soviet scientists came up with the non-biogenic oil theory was to perpetuate the myth that oil will never run out. The Communist Party hacks wanted "science" to reinforce their view that the Soviet Union was unstoppable, and depletable oil reserves didn't fit with that picture. If we follow their line on oil supply, we'll be in the same boat as the farmers who were forced to follow the "theories" of party hacks and charlatans who said that you could grow wheat in the tundra by freezing the seeds.
#9. To: mirage (#7)
(Edited)
#10. To: mirage (#7)
If "the earth just makes oil" then it would have the same chemical fingerprints everywhere because it would come from the same source, right?
#11. To: mirage (#7)
#12. To: Esso (#6)
Much better to have the wive's tales about oil wells that fill themselves back up and the mythical million-year untapped oil fields
#13. To: Old Friend (#11)
#14. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#2)
(Edited)
The reason Soviet scientists came up with the non-biogenic oil theory was to perpetuate the myth that oil will never run out.
#15. To: Rupert_Pupkin, Esso (#12)
Kind of ironic how atheist Communists and religious fundies converge to the same stories.
#16. To: nikki (#0)
#17. To: mirage (#7)
If it all comes from the same source, then how can we track it down to a particular well?
#18. To: Tauzero (#16)
This theory is probably correct, IMO.
#19. To: RickyJ (#14)
(Edited)
So there many deep wells that have catapulted them to a major world old producing nation is just luck? Yeah, whatever!
#20. To: mirage (#13)
hog entrails can also be placed in a "thermal depolymerization" machine
#21. To: mirage (#15)
(Edited)
#22. To: Tauzero (#16)
This theory is probably correct, IMO.
#23. To: nikki (#22)
#24. To: RickyJ. all (#23)
#25. To: RickyJ (#23)
It's been over thirty years we have heard about the world running out of oil, yet production continues to increase.
#26. To: nikki (#25)
#27. To: Rotara (#26)
Play close attention to those pushing the 'fossil fuel' tripe. ;-)
#28. To: nikki (#25)
some things are not practical, dependable, affordable or sane. So, see what works well, for whom, where.. and then, build from there.
#29. To: angle (#28)
It seems that the oil industry requires an enormous infrastructure investment, but the globalists already have a lock on it, making alternatives merely a competition.
#30. To: nikki, wadosy (#0)
"oil is not a 'fossil fuel' but is a natural product of planet earth - the high-temperature, high-pressure continuous reaction between calcium carbonate and iron oxide - two of the most abundant compounds making up the earth's crust. This continuous reaction occurs at a depth of approximately 100 km at a pressure of approximately 50,000 atmospheres (5 GPa) and a temperature of approximately 1500°C, and will continue more or less until the 'death' of planet earth in millions of years' time"
#31. To: Peter Carswell (#30)
(Edited)
#32. To: All (#31)
#33. To: Peter Carswell (#30)
(Edited)
the root cause of our problems is peak oil.
#34. To: RickyJ (#23)
It's been over thirty years we have heard about the world running out of oil, yet production continues to increase.
#35. To: Rhino369 (#34)
(Edited)
...since the 70s, the US, Mexico, Russia, Canadad, and Venezuela all peaked in oil production.
#36. To: Rhino369 (#34)
(Edited)
Even if it was an abiogenic source, it clearly doesn't replace the oil fast enough, since wells in the US went dry and stayed that way.
#37. To: RickyJ (#36)
Russia has proved more than once that oil can be found at depths that the biogensis theory would say is not possible.
Reality is that we have more oil around the North Slope of Alaska than all the oil in Saudi Arabia.
Counting natural gas and oil in the North Slope alone, we have enough energy resources to last the USA for over 200 years.
Offshore drilling does not guarantee more oil finds but I suspect we haven't even begun to deplete the world's oil supply to any significant degree. We may have reached the end of cheap oil recovery, but we have not even started to reach peak oil.
#38. To: nikki (#0)
#39. To: nikki (#0)
(Edited)
Needless to say, the last people to tell us the truth about oil will be the oil producers and oil companies, for they of course have a vested interest in perpetuating the myth that oil is a fossil fuel and that it will soon be exhausted, in order to ratchet up the price for as long as they can. And don't look to the Russians to enlighten the world with the truth about oil either, for they are surely laughing now that the oil price is approaching $US150 a barrel.
#40. To: mirage, Esso, nikki (#7)
(Edited)
If it all comes from the same source, then how can we track it down to a particular well?
#41. To: angle (#28)
(Edited)
It seems that the oil industry requires an enormous infrastructure investment, but the globalists already have a lock on it, making alternatives merely a competition.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest